At the last Eureka Town Board meeting on August 14th, I made the following public comment:
Town Boards have a duty and a responsibility to maintain settlement agreements in place when they assume office.
These settlement agreements often follow litigation and involve considerable time and resources by Township attorneys and officials at taxpayers’ expense.
These agreements are compromises reached by both sides, hopefully to the benefit of the public. To not uphold such agreements is to let your public down.
In April of this year, Chair Pete Storlie declared that certain unfinished items kept on the agenda as a reminder until taken care of were to be removed immediately. As a Board Supervisor, he should know that among all the business conducted, certain items can fall through the cracks and not be followed up on.
In April I explained that the settlement agreement with Country Stone that goes with property to Scotts Miracle-Gro includes the replacement of any screening trees that are dead, dying, or diseased. This spring would have been an ideal time for replacement. There are currently a goodly number of trees at this site that need such replacement.
Pete Storlie’s answer at the time to my input? “I’d have to see that agreement.” That was months ago, Mr. Chair. Has the clerk shown you that agreement? Have you even asked to see it? Or are you content to let this “fall through the cracks?”
It is now August. Fall is another favorable planting season. Please act on your obligation as the current Chair and Board to get these trees replaced. There is a landscaping plan specified in the agreement map. Trees are to be replaced by the same specimens as noted there. September is fast approaching.
Thank you.
I WAS ON THE BOARD WHEN THIS MATTER WAS NEGOTIATED. JEFF OTTO WAS ONE OF TWO DIRECT BOARD NEGOTIATORS WITH THE OTHER SIDE, BUT I WAS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR INCLUDING THE TREE REPLACEMENT LANGUAGE. I RECOGNIZED THIS AGREEMENT CONTINUES INTO THE FUTURE. FOR SCREENING TO BE PROVIDED BY THE TREES TO CONTINUE THEIR REPLACEMENT SHOULD (WHEN) THE TREES DIE WAS NECESSARY.
WHAT RESPONSE DID I RECEIVE?
An essentially meaningless, "Thank you, Nancy" from Pete Storlie. I say "essentially meaningless" because this is the Chair's usual response to anyone making a public comment, followed by no action on the point made by the citizen. No action, no discussion, even. No placing the item on the agenda for discussion that night, which the Board is fully able to do. A Board can discuss ANY topic at a regularly scheduled meeting, which this was. (Special meetings are a different case. Besides, the Board takes no public comment at special meetings.)
So, not only did CHAIR STORLIE not add this item to the agenda, the OTHER THREE SUPERVISORS PRESENT--CEMINSKY, NOVACEK, AND POPE were totally silent. None of them apparently thought that the current Board should discuss this upholding of an agreement that cost you, the taxpayer, to resolve.
Where is the responsiveness to citizens? WHY did they refuse to deal with this matter that night? Are they picking sides in a long-ago, already settled, litigation issue? By not acting that night, the earliest this will be dealt with by this Board is in the spring. And since it is no longer on an "unfinished business" item on the agenda, do citizens have to keep showing up to remind them TO DO THEIR JOB?
